effectivelywildfandomcom-20200215-history
Episode 503: Listener Emails of Future Past
Date July 30, 2014 Summary Ben and Sam answer listener emails about the trade deadline, draft strategy, five-strikeout innings, and more. Topics * Five strikeout innings * Waxahachie swaps * Playoff odds and trade deadline moves * Dan Uggla & the San Francisco Giants * Consecutive home runs hypothetical * Young player counting stat records * Exceeding draft spending limits * Psychological value of home runs Intro Feist, "Undiscovered First" Banter * Webb/Albers update: Ryan Webb has recently finished two games without earning the save. Matt Albers will throw a bullpen session this week. Ben & Sam guess their age. * Vin Scully will come back for the 2015 season. * Clayton Kershaw's appearance on the Jimmy Kimmel show. * Episode 502 follow-up: Ben & Sam got many responses from their episode about independent leagues. Sam was contacted by the broadcaster of the Sonoma Stompers and will go to a game soon. * Episode 500 follow-up: A listener who is a member of a pipe fitters union wrote in about buying ad time during baseball games. Email Questions * Chad: "Which will happen first in MLB: a batter with a 5 homer game or a pitcher with a 5 strikeout inning?" * Mike: "With Jeff Francoeur and Jason Lane now on the Padres' roster could they effectively and strategically use both guys as both pitchers and outfielders? Isn't having a reliever with the ability to play a defensive replacement level outfield to facilitate late game matchups a strategy that has been under employed? I can see an athletic guy like Drew Storen pitching to right handed batters and then able to hold his own in the outfield for a left handed batter or two before he comes back in to pitch. Wouldn't this add value and differentiate many of the middle to late inning relievers?" * Paul: "You spoke about contenders last week and given the time of year most teams should have an idea where they stand. What do a team's playoff odds have to be in order to consider themselves a contender? Is it as easy as saying that if current playoff odds plus the marginal projected odds gained after making their 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5 deals to improve is greater than 50% you are a buyer and if less than 50% you are a seller? Do you consider this to be an appropriate gauge or should the 50% threshold be adjusted down if teams value the wild card game less than the division series? Are playoff odds the best measure of contender-ness?" * Andrew: "My question is about Dan Uggla. So as Grant Brisbee has already posited multiple times Dan Uggla has been so bad that the Braves are paying him a lot of money to play elsewhere. The Giants signed him to a minor league deal which was much heralded by the fan base as a no risk option to which Grant and many other writers cried foul, as Dan Uggla can be worse than what they've got now and the Giants have a habit of letting such players do so. Lo and behold due to injuries they called him up and he was predictably horrible. What I found interesting was that in every interview I heard they claimed that the real plan was to let him work out his kinks in the minor leagues for roughly ten days before promoting him. My question is does this rationale hold any water at all? What could the Giants have found in his swing that could be rectified in one week at AAA that can't be rectified in one week at the majors? If this is impossible then why sign Uggla at all? Is this purely an F U to the fans who wanted Dan Uggla? IE 'You want this guy, fine! See how bad he is?!'. Are the Giants just flailing around in hopes that something gets done?" * Miles: "Let's say there is a player who is just called up from the minors to the big leagues for the first time at age 30. He is a strict first baseman. How many consecutive home runs would he have to start his career with to be considered the best baseball player of all time? Let's assume lightening strikes him after his first out, rendering him lame but not dead (I'm not that cruel)." * Brandon: "I was thinking a little bit about spending and the MLB draft. Could you envision a scenario, even one that's borderline/completely hypothetical where a team would be willing to intentionally overspend its draft spending limit and take on the consequences for doing so? I imagine such a thing wouldn't be practical in real life or would require a perfect storm of factors that would make it worthwhile. A few factors I'm thinking of off the top of my head. A team would need to be in a worst to first situation where they're drafting in the top 10 because of a bad previous season and will be drafting in the 20s in the next season and likely seasons to come, a future year's picks could then be seen as expendable if they find the right players this year. A team would be banking on signing a big name free agent or two or more in consecutive seasons and since they'll already be forfeiting their top picks because of overspending the limits they would only have to forfeit a third round pick. A team would have to identify at least three first round level talents in one draft and be able to acquire them in the later rounds to make up for picks lost in future years. This would require an ideal situation where talented players drop and then keep dropping when teams realize they can't meet their contract demands. The only way I could really see this happening is if certain players start falling. A team in a situation like this notices and then decides on the spot to execute the plan. Plus, since prospects will break your heart it's too risky to really go beyond all in and forfeit so many future picks. There are probably too many factors to make it work but it's a fun thought experiment, would love to hear your thoughts." * Robert: "Two questions. The first one are questions that are asked on Mondays or Tuesdays more likely to make it into Wednesday's show than questions asked on Thursdays or Fridays? I'm sure I'm not the only listener who's idly wondered this. Is a home run from a player you're absurdly overpaying, like a B.J. Upton or an Uggla, worth more than a home run from a surprisingly well performing rookie who is making the minimum and delivering plenty of bang for the buck. I ask because recently when Chris Young actually hit a home run for my Mets I felt a brief reprieve as in 'Oh, at least he's a little less of a disappointment for $7 million than he was before the homer.' That got me thinking is there a difference? Is a homer simply a homer or is there more value for a team to get value from players they have played more for?" Play Index * Inspired by Craig Kimbrel, Sam wants to find out young players who have career records in counting stats. * Matt Moore has the most ever 5 1/3 inning scoreless starts (3). Scott Kazmir has the most ever 6 inning scoreless starts (14). Notes * There have been 72 four-strikeout innings in MLB history. * While watching a Joey Gallo home run highlight Sam discusses that he doesn't find home run highlights aesthetically pleasing. * Dan Uggla lead the league in walks in 2012. * Sam, on Miles' question, "What? Ben, what is this question?" * Sam thinks that if a player started with 17 consecutive home runs it would cement him as a legend. Ben sets it at 8. To convince analysts Sam thinks it would be much higher, around 45. * Craig Kimbrel has 18 saves in his career where he faced 3 batters and struck out all 3. This is a MLB record. * Randy Choate has 6 career appearances where he hit all the batters he faced. * Robert addresses Ben as 'the Pickler', calling back to Ben's experience making pickles that was discussed in Episode 287 and Episode 289. Links * Effectively Wild Episode 503: Listener Emails of Future Past * Giants sign Dan Uggla, who is bad at baseball by Grant Brisbee Category:Email Episodes Category:Episodes